4.4 Article

Space-charge effects with mass-selective axial ejection from a linear quadrupole ion trap

期刊

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 25, 期 23, 页码 3509-3520

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.5255

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. AB Sciex through an Industrial Research Chair

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods to reduce mass shifts caused by space charge with mass-selective axial ejection from a linear quadrupole ion trap are investigated. For axial ejection, dipole excitation is applied to excite ions at q approximate to 0.85. The trapping radiofrequency (rf) voltage is scanned to bring ions of different m/z values into resonance for excitation. In the fringing field at the quadrupole exit, excited ions gain axial kinetic energy, overcoming the trapping potential, and are ejected from the trap. Space charge causes the frequencies of ion oscillation to decrease. Thus, greater rf voltages are required to bring ions into resonance for excitation and ejection, and the ions shift to higher apparent masses in a mass spectrum. At the same time, the peaks broaden, lowering resolution. The effects of injection q value, ejection q value, excitation amplitude, quadrupole dc voltages applied to the electrodes, applying an rf voltage to the exit lens, and scan speed, on mass shifts have been studied experimentally. Most experiments were done with only ions of protonated reserpine (m/z 609.3 and its isotopic peaks) in the trap. Some experiments were done with ions of protonated reserpine and ions of m/z 622 in the trap. In general, the mass shifts are reduced with higher ejection q values, higher excitation amplitudes, with quadrupole dc applied, and at higher scan speeds. The application of quadrupole dc appears to increase the ion cloud temperature, which lowers mass shifts. Thus, a proper choice of operating conditions can reduce, but not eliminate, mass shifts caused by space charge. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据